I am opposed to the unproven idea of “let the money follow the child” as described in the bill passed by the Georgia Senate but rejected by the House. The one proven legal path out of poverty has been public education. This idea narrows that pathway.
Further, there are well-documented social costs when a government chooses to take hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the less well-off (public school students) and give these millions to the better-off (private school students). On average, private school K-12 tuition in Georgia runs between $11,000 and $12,000 annually.
Clearly, the governor’s proposal to provide $6,500 per student from the public education budget will not allow many public school students to attend private school. Here in Putnam County, Gatewood’s annual tuition is between $8,500-$9,800 and John Milledge Academy (in Milledgeville) charges $7,700-$8,000, plus mandatory fees of $500 annually.
The proposal to give the 400 or so current Gatewood students $6,500 each would reduce the state contribution to Putnam by more than $2.6 million. Add to this, home-schooled and other private school students, and the total annual cost to Putnam K-12 schools will likely be in excess of $4 million annually.
Advocates of letting the money follow the child generally make two claims. One is that this policy would provide an escape path for those students trapped in failing schools. My response to this is why not then focus on the needs of those students who are in the relatively few schools labeled “failing” by the Georgia Department of Education? This would clearly cost a lot less than the hundreds of millions, escalating to billions over time, that the governor proposes. Further, it focuses the money on the problem, rather than depriving successful public schools of the state monies they now receive.
The second claim of those who want the money to follow the K-12 students is that this competition would improve the public schools. The rules of this competition are clear. Firstly, we will take hundreds of millions of dollars from the public schools and give it to private schools and homeschooled students.
Secondly, only public-school students must meet state curricula requirements and pass tests required by the state. No such requirements exist for home-schooled or private school students.
Thirdly, public school systems must admit all students who reside in their district. Private schools may admit only those students they choose to admit. In Putnam County, some 15% of students qualify as special needs, running the gamut from a little bit of extra help required to needing a personal, full-time aide.
Private schools generally do not have significant numbers of special needs students.
The fourth rule of this competition is that public schools will still be required to meet state rules on how their monies are to be spent and submit an annual audit to confirm conformance.
The millions of state and local property tax dollars to be gifted to private school and home-schooled students come without strings or any follow-up audits. The monies may be spent as parents or guardians see fit. Thus, the basic rules of the “competition” have been established.
Despite these clear rules, advocates seem to be completely silent as to how to determine the “winner” in educational terms. The newly enriched home-schooled and private school students are not required to take the state-mandated courses or tests. If public school test scores rise, is that how we determine the winner?
If, as is more likely, public school test scores decline due to the 10-15% budget cuts, does that mean it was a bad idea?
Over how many subjects and how many years should we the taxpayers wait to see if this untested idea has any merit? If it leads to poorer public schools, what then is the corrective course? What if the number of homeschooled students rises significantly, as those receiving state or federal financial aid realize they can be given $6,500 annually per claimed home-schooled student, no questions asked?
What would you do if you weren’t sure of having shelter or enough food to last the month?
Let me close by asking some questions of those who still believe in letting the money follow the student.
Why don’t you propose paying for the newly entitled 10-15% private and homeschooled K-12 students, rather than reducing funds allocated for public education? If you believe that unaffordable, why not simply restrict the money to those students in “failing” schools?
If you really believe “competition” will improve public education, why stop at grade 12? Why are public colleges not included? At least there we could judge real-world impact in some 5-10 years.